document resume sp 006 840 dotson, charles 0. title novel … · 2014-01-02 · document resume ed...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 081 728 SP 006 840

AUTHOR DotsOn, Charles 0.TITLE Novel Skill Learning and Gross Motor Performance

Correlates..SPONS AGENCY Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, Tex.PUB DATE 73VOTE 44p.; Paper presented at the Convention of the

American Association for Health, Physical Education,and Recreation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 1973

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Athletic Activities; *Motor Reactions; *Physical

Characteristics; Physical Development; PhysicalEducation; *Psychomotor Skills

IDENTIFIERS Neuromuscular Skills

ABSTRACTThis research study determined the relative

importance of various basic motor ability traits possessed by thelearner in the process of acquiring neuromuscular skills. Fifty-twouniversity students practiced two novel skills (ball toss andf li -back paddle ball) 5 days per week for 2 weeks. Prior to beginningpractice, each subject was measured on 26 basic motor ability items..Factor analysis was employed to isolate basic factors underlying eachpractice sequence and the gross motor performance traits. Ten stablefactors were isolated, including two that described practice for thenovel skills and eight that involved gross motor performance.Comparisons of the factor loadings among practice stages for eachnovel skill across the eight motor performance factors suggested thefollowing conclusions: a) no relationship existed between gross motorfactors and performance on the f li -back paddle ball skill; b) grossmotor factors were related to performance on the ball toss skillduring early, but not late, stages of practice; c) different grossmotor factors related to performance on the ball toss skill aspractice continued; and d) performance on the ball toss skill shouldbe assessed only after several practice periods to prevent scorecomparisons.. (Author /JA)

.11

cJ-

vJ

Novel Skill Learning and GrossMotor Performance Correlates

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONALINSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCE D EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW DR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY.

SEP 2 0 1973

Intro :ruction

Charles 0. Dotson'University of MarylandCollege of Physical Education,Recreation, and Health

Department of Physical EducationCollege Park, Maryland 20742

The purpose of this research was to determine the relative importance of various

basic motor ability traits possessed by the learner in the process of acquiring

neuromuscular skills. In particular, the study attempted to determine the degree to

which performance on certain novel motor tasks at various stages of practice are

free of influence from certain rather permanent gross motor ability traits.

Such studies are rare in the literature. The few that have been conducted

involved complex coordination tasks of a highly specialized nature (e.g. making

complex adjustments of an airplane stick and rudder in response to visual signal

patterns), (9)related printed test performance and psychomotor test performance,(26)

or utilized basic abilities highly loaded with non-motor factors (e.g. numerical

operations, speed of identification, visual pursuits, and spatial orientation).(29)

(10)(15)(4)

Many of these studies have provided theoretical principles which have been

generalized to include gross motor skill learning of interest to the physical

educator. The generalizations must be made with caution until further evidence on

motor skills upholds or refutes these principles.

1This study was supported in part by a faculty research grant at Stephen F. AustinState University, Nacogdoches, Texas.

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE

Determining the factor structures of motor skills acquisition is important

for a number of reasons. The determination that different abilities are important

in the various phases of learning a skill discourages attempts to predict future

success in terms of initial performance. If the basic hypothesis holds true for a

given motor skill the need for criterion analyses of more advanced levels of

proficiency is emphasized. Further, establishing the tenability of the basic

hypothesis would hive implications for test development in the motor skill area

investigated. For example, factor structure changes with practice suggest that

abilities contributing variance at different stages of motor skill performance must

be defined in order to permit specification of how much practice to allow to reach

the stage of performance at which it would be most desirable to score the test

battery. This stage of performance would be the point the factor loadings of the

battery items are at a maximum and other items of lesser importance to the criterion

score are at a minimum. In view of the low validity coefficients reported for most

sports skill tests, this proposed approach is quite important in the development of(21)(18)(2)

useful sport skill test batteries.,

Method of Procedure

Fifty-two male university students practiced two novel skills involving

eye-hand coordination. The two skills are described below. Selection of the

skills was based on the criterion of ease of scoring and general novelty to a large

group of individuals.

Ball Toss

A eye-hand coordination task which possesses a negative acceleration(28)

learning curve. Subjects sat in front of a table and attempted to

bounce a table tennis ball from the table into a cylindrical target.

The target was constructed of tin sheeting and situated four feet from the

front edge of the table. There were three target boundaries or openings with

radii of 1 1/4 3 3/4, and 6 1/4 inches. Except for those tosses which missed

the apparat'is, trials were scored one, three, or five points accumulated in

25 tosses.

Fli-Back Paddle Ball

A eye-hand coordination task which possesses a positive acceleration learning(28)

curve. Equipment utilized was a paddle racket with a 30 inch rubber string

attached at one end to the racket and to a one inch diameter rubber ball at the

other end. Subjects attempted.to hit the ball consequently as many time as

possible. The score per practice session was the total number of successive

hits suvied over four trials. One trial was defined as one in which subject

successfully hit the ball at least three times in succession.

The two skills described were practiced five days per week for two weeks,

giving a total of ten practice sessions. In each case the procedure followed

was selected to permit acquisition curves of previous studies to be compared

with results obtained in the present research.

Prior to beginning practice on the two motor skills each subject was measured

on twenty-six basic motor ability items. Selection of the motor abilities were made

on the basis of their consistent appearance in previous factor analytic studies.

(8) (17) (6)

Specifically the works of Fleishman, Ismail and Cowell, and Cumbee

were relied heavily upon. The list given below provides the factor involved and

each test measuring that specific factor.

Explosive Strength-General1. Figure 8 Duck

Explosive Strength-Legs2. Standing Bread Sump3. Vertical Jump

Static Strength4. Hand Grip5. Arm-Pull Dynamometer

Dynamic Strength6. Pull-ups (limit)7. Pull-ups (20 sec.)

Extend Flexibility8. Twist and Touch9. Toe Touching

Dynamic Flexibility10. Lateral Bend11. Bond, Twist, and Touch

Gross Body Equilibrium12. Two Foot Cross Balance-Eyes Closed13. One Foot Lengthwise Balance-Eyes Closed

Kinesthetic Sense14. Arm Position right15. Arm Position left

Balance-Visual Cues16. One Foot Lengthwise Balance - Eyes Open17. One Foot Cross Balance - Eyes Open18. Ball Balance

Speed of Limb Movement19. Plate Tapping .

20. Two Foot Tapping

Gross Body Coordination21. Cable Jump22. Soccer Dribble23. Dodge Run24. Bar Snap

Reaction and Movement Time25. Visual Reaction Time26. Auditory Reaction Time27. Movement Time

Multilimb Coordination28. Complex Coordination Test29. Two Hand Coordination Test

Control Precision30. Discrimination Reaction Time31. Unidimensional Matching

Response Orientation32. Discrimination Reaction Time33. Direction Control

Manual Dexterity34. Minnesota Rate of Manipulation-Placing35. Minnesota Rate of Manipulation-Turning

(8)

Detailed descriptions for each of the above test items may be found in rleishman.

Statistical treatment of the data involved computing intercorrelations among

the practice sessions for each motor skill and the thirty-five basic motor abilities.

Taking each motor skill separately along with the basic motor abilities gave four

35 x 35 intercorrelation matrices. Each intercorrelation matrix was subjected to

factor analysis to determine the relative importance of the various basic motor

abilities throughout the learning process.

Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical technique which permits

intercorrelations of a number of variables to be objectively categorized into

"clusters" of test scores such that tests within clusters are highly related and

tests between clusters are minimally related. Thus factor analysis remits a

correlation matrix to be reduced to a factor matrix of minimum dimensior which

in some reasonable sense reproduces the original corre?3tione. The specific

methodology used for the present investigation was Rotelliags's Principal-Component(16)

Analysis as a preliminary solution. This analysis is a multivariate generali-

zation of the least squares solutions used in regression analysis. Two additional

preliminary solutions also were obtained utilizing alternate procedures suggested(25) (20)

by Rao and Kaiser and Caffrey These were respectively Canonical Factor

Analysis and Alpha Factor Analysis. The reason for the three preliminary solutions

was that there does not exist universal agrearJent as to which approach is best.

Although it should be noted that generally only minor differences exist. However,

to insure that derived factors extracted for a given analysis are not a function of

the methodology utilized, only those factors which are logically sound across all

three solutions were considered. For each preliminary solution, orthogonal rotation(19)

of the factor'matrix was achieved utilizing Kaiser's Varimax Criterion

Orthogonal rotation was necessary for interpreting the nature of factors extracted

by the different preliminary solutions. The results permitted stable factor

structures of each motor skill to be characterized.

rage 8

Results and Discussion

Intereorrolation matrix indentifyYng relationships among the test

variables included in Tables 1 - 5. Rotated factor loadings for all

factor analysis results are. presented in Tables 6 - 9.

Factor IdentificatiOn.

In this section the rotated factor loadings for each factor

isolated for each novel skill will be presented and discussed.

Emphasis is placed upon identifying each factor as a robust trait.

Generally, only loadings of .30 end higher are included in the body

of the paper for discussion.

FACTOR Ia

No. Variable

8F

Loading

1OF

Loading

27 Fli-back Day 1 .95 .9528 Fli-back Day 2 .98 .9829 Fli-back Day 3 .96 .963031

Fli-back Da3, L!

Fli-back Day 5.98.98

.98

.9832 Fli-back Day 6 .98 .9833 Fli-back Day 7 .98 .9834 Fli-back Day 8 .97 .9735 Fli-back Day 9 .99 .9936 Fli-back Day 10 .97 .97

Factor one(a) is cha 'acterized in both solutions by extremely high

loadings for the Fli-baok paddle ball scores for all 10 practice

sessions. The lowest loading of 095 is associated with the first

practice session and the highest loading is associated with the

ninth practice sessions The loadings, however, follow no trend

suggesting the relationship between sessions increases as practice

continues. Since the loadings are near one from the first session

t1-33- -uctcnst that ()nets success in performing this novel eye and

hai,j ,.00rdination task can be predicted on the basis of his intial

=,i-Hrmance. The large percent contribution of this factor indicates

Ghat a major part of the total factor structure is unique to the skill.

The decision to rotate eight or ten factors had no effect upon the

structure of this factor. This factor is thus readily defined as

Eye hand Coordination Test Specific.

FACTOR Ib

No.

272829

Variable

13F

Loading

8F

Loading

Ping -pond; Day 1Ping -gong Day 2Ping -gong Day 3

.06

.23

53

.15,23.51

30 Ping-pong Day 4 .I.6 .4331 Ping-pong Day 5 .73 .6632 Ping-pong Day 6 .48 .52

33 Ping-pong Day 7 .69 .663I Ping-pong Day 8 .62 .65

35 Ping-pong Day 9 .88 .8936 Ping-pong Day 10 .79 .80

Factor one(b) has high loadings associated with variables defining

performance on the Pi-:g -pong ball toss skill. It may be noted that

the factor 1-)adings for the ten uractice sessions increase from the

first to the tenth sessions. This suggest that the skill is not

highly specific as was the case with the Fli-back paddle ball test.

Thus, this factor is defined as Object Projection for Accursc7.

Unlie Factor one(a), performance on this factor would not be

roliasly assessed utilizing early practice session performance

scores, The fact that the two novel skills differ in this respect

porm'ts us to compare the two factor structures during the learning

proc,c00

No. VariableFBPB8F

FACTOR II

PPBT8F

FBPB1OF

PPBT13F

20 One-foot Tapping .94 -.93 .93 -.916 Movement Time .91 -.91 .92 -.9315 Visual Reaction Time .90 -.89 .90 -.9117 Plate Tapping .85 -.83 .84 -.7813 Hand Grip -.64 .67 -.66 ,68

14 Ball Balance .61 -.65 .63 -.6418 Two-foot Tapping .48 -.52 .48 -.3921 Block Transfer -.43 .42 -.42 .30

22 Kinesthetic Sense .42 -.40 .38 -.4211 Vertical Jump ,29 -.25 .28 -.27

7 Cont. 13.5% 13.5%

Factor II is defined by a number of items requiring speed of limb

movement. This is true of three of the four highest loading

variables with reaction time accounting for the fourth. In addition,

MO other speed of limb movement variables exhibit moderate loadings

for this factor. The remaining variables involve ability traits

which are auxiliary factors of the speed of limb movement task.

For example, hand grip, a measure of static strength, would logicall.

correlate with strength required to overcome inertia of limb to

perform the movement required. Since speed of limb movement tests

generally require the movement of the limb over a short distance

the predominant force required to execute the movement is static in

nature, thus, explaining the static strength measure's (hand grip)

loading for this factor. The high moderate loading for Ball balance

indicates that this factor also involves speed of movement to perform

a specific task. It seems clear that this factor may be defined

as Specified Speed of Movement. The 13.5 percent contribution of

this factor to the total factor structure suggest that spec,' of

movement is a dominant trait required to execute the ability tests

included in the total variable space. Like the first factor the

decision to rotate eight or ten factors had no effect upon the

parsomonius structure of this factor. In addition, the inclusion

of the basis motor ability items with each set of nove_ skill learning

scores had no influence upon the simple structure of this factor.

The results suggest this factor is quite robust.

-FACTOR III

No. VariableFBPB8F

PPBT8F

FBPB10F

PPBT

9 Pull-ups Timed .91 .89 .93 ..:-

8 Pull-ups Limit .88 .88 .90 .38

12 Arm Pull .59 .51 .55 .50

25 1 ft. Lengthwise. BalanceEyes Closed .49 .34 .43 .27

10 Standing Broad Jump .43 .60 .47 .64

11 Vertical Jump .36 .50 .4C .54

3 Twist & Touch =.32 -.30 -.29 -.29

This factor is heavily loaded with general strength items. The

highest loading (.91 & .93) is associated with an explosive strength

measure with the second highest loading associated with a test

requiring gross strength, explosive strength and endurance. It is(10)

well known that the three are moderate to highly related . These

two items are followed by the static strength measure identified as

arm pull. The remaining items involve balance, a task greatly

facilitated by a high static strength component, explosive power,

as measured by standing broad jump and vertical jump, and flexibility

a physiologically limiting component to general strength measures.

This factor is best represented by items common to three different

factors isolated by Fleishman, the structure of which has been

questioned by a number of previous studies (Harris and Liba, Harris,

Safrit, Liba, and Jackson). Al]. suggested at least five factors

were present. This study does not include all of the items included

in the original Fleishman study and was not intended to study the

stability of his original factors. The basic purpose of this study,

however, requires that definite stable factors be present as

reference traits to characterize the learning curves for the novel

skill studied. Since the items common to the Fleishman study all

cluster in only one factor in this study the results only add to the

dilemma. The factor isolated in the present study, however, is the

most reliable of those isolated by this and previous strength studies

since the present studies factor is general. The relationship of

this factor with the skill learning curves will then be at least as

high as the correlations which will be presented below. With these

observations in mind we may define this factor as General Strength

With Explosive Components Emphasized.

FACTOR IV

No. VariableFBPB8F

PPBT8F

FBPB10F

PPBT13F

19 Lateral Bend -.CO .73 -.81 .84

12 Arm Pull -.53 .51 -.59 .42

14 Ball Balance -.46 .42 -.43 .46

25 1-ft. Balance-Eyes Closed -.36 .44 -.41 .35

33 Ping-pong B.T. Practice 7 .45 .29

34 Ping-pong B.T. Practice 8 -.33 -.21

18 Two-foot Tapping .33

This factor has loadings associated with a diversity of items. On

first impression one is inclined to conclude that the factor is not

stable enough to define. To be sure this possibility cannot be

completely ruled out. However, considering the mechanics involved

in each task represented and the kinetoenergetics involved does

provide for a tentative definition of the factor. Each item involves

some degree of flexibility either as the dominant ability trait as

in the Lateral Bend item or as a limiting factor as in the strength

measure Arm Pull. This latter characteristic holds for both maximum

strength as in the Arm Pull item or a sub-maximal strength trait

required in 4-;he balancing tasks of Ball Balance and One-foot Lengthwise

Balance eyes closed. That is, in the latter involvement for flexibility,

it is well known that flexibility and strength are related since

maximum strength can be exerted 1.2 times resting length with

anatomical limitations usually representing this 1.2 times factor.

Thus, loss of flexibility reduces usable force. This also holds for

any percentage of strength exerted. Thus, greater control can be

maintained over a given set of muscles when the number of muscle

fibers required to execute the task is small. Flexibility provides

this element for the Ball Balance and One-foot Lengthwise Balance

eyes closed. Thus, Flexibility as a Limiting Factor to Task Perfor-

mance is the definition given to this factor. It is interesting to

note that the ping -pony ball toss practice sessions 7 and 8 load

high enough to be included in the list of items to be used in defining

this factor. Further discussion of this association is made later

in the report.

The stability of this fxlctor held across the four analysis

performed. It did, however, shift in importance in the factor

structure when the ping-pang ball toss practice sessions., were included

in the analysis. The shift was from fourth to sixth for both the

eight factor and 13 ,factor rotation.

FACTOR V

No. VariableFB8F

FP8F

FB1OF

PP13F

71011251

272822

Bar SnapStanding Broad JumpVertical Jump1-ft. Balance Eyes ClosedDodge RunPing-pong B.T. Practice 1Ping-pong B.T. Practice 2Kinesthetic Sense

-.74-.70-.62.30.28

-.73-.50-.46.31.26

-.70-.65

-.81-.69-.50.32.35

-.47-.28-.33.2105

-.84-.78.28

The variables loading high on this factor involve projecting the

body with power. This is true for the first three factor solutions

presented above. The top loading of the body projection variables

is challenged by the Ping-pong Bell Toss Practice 1 and 2 for the

third solution involving eight rotated factors. These latter

measures surpass the body projection variable loadings when thirteen

factors were rotated. It is possible that this factor is multi-

dimensional. Evidence to support this is seen from the latter two

factor solutions involving the Ping-pong Ball Toss measure. In these

solutions the loadings for the body projection measure decrease in

magnitude and exhibit significant loadings on other factors. In view

of the fact that the factor is stable with respect to the Fli-back

Paddle P,a31 this factor is defined as Body Projection with Power.

It interesting to note that when the Ping-pong Ball Toss practice

scc-cs are analyzed with the twenty-six reference variables the

fertcrstr,octure does not separate body projection and object pro-

jection variables into two factors. Disagreement exist in the

professional literature concerning the separation of these factors.

It wetld appear that in each case body projection and object projection

variables are factorially complex.

FACTOR VI

No.

1-/;

Toe Touching .82 .6t .84 .86

5 Cable Jump .61 .51 .19 .0822 Kinesthetic Sence .41 .35 32 .3518 Two-foot Tapping .36 .33 .48 .2023 1-ft. Lengthwise Balance

Eyes Open -.24 -.47 -.00 -.1329 Ping -pond; B.T. Practice 3 .47 .092 Figure-8 Duck .23 .13 :19 .34

25 1-ft. Lengthwise BalanceEyes Closed. ,-.11 -.00 -.21 -.35

30 Ping -gong B.T. Practice L -.18 -.48% Contribution 4.76 4.40 5.06 4.75

This factor is highly loaded with variables involving full range

flexibility or task with full range flexibility serving as a limiting

factor. Thus, this factor may be defined as Extend Flexibility.

The factor does not prove stable across all four factor solutions.

It is best defined for the solutions rotating eight factors. The

oi.)n criterion rotation, which permitted Ten and Thirteen factors

respectively to rotate, shows a compressed loading for those items

bore full range flexibility is a limiting factor. Otherwise the

fl-ibility trait remains intact. This is important and suggests a

nor( stable factor than might otherwise be the case. In addition,

a shift from 'Right tc Thirteen factors exhibits a dra tic shift in

loading for the two practice sessions involving Ping -gong Ball Toss.

The only explaination that could logically explain this shift is

that thirteen factors are too many to rotate. That is, no physical

meaning can be attached tothe latter factor in view of the original

loadings for the practice sessions on the eight factor structure.

It is interesting to note that this peculiarity would not have been

detected had only one or the other of the two solutions involving the

Ping-pong Ball Toss variables been derived. This suggest that one

should rotate a preliminary solution more than once including

increasing numbers of factors. The final structure could then be

determined on the basis of logical soundness of the different

structures. This concept was originally proposed by Kaizer.

However, his proposal suggested only one rotation be done with all

factors included. The present study suggest this may produce flaws

in the structure which could not be detected by only one rotation.

Thus, the muli-rotation scheme seems best.

FACTOR VII

No. VariableFB8F

PP8F

FB1OF

PP13F

2 Figure-8 Duck .83 .85 .87 .761 Dodge Run .68 .69 .68 .84

21 Block Transfer 48 .49 .48 .226 Soccer Dribble .38 .27 .11 .083 Twist & Touch -.35 -.44 -.33 -.141

14 Ball Balance -.31 -.34 -.32 -.2623 1-ft. Lengthwise Balance

Eyes Open .31 .20 .06 .1018 Two-foot Tapping 7.29 -.20 -.31 -.0222 Kinesthetic Sense .17 .20 .30 .15

% Contribution 6.31 6.78 6005 5Q83

Paco 17

This factor is predominantly loaded with items involving projecting

the body with changing directions emphasized. This factor lias

hypothesized and substantiated by Jackson and others. The factor

is to be distinguished from the previous body projection factor

which emphasized power. However, it is interesting to note that

the two factors have in common a flexibility trait which serves as

a limiting factor to successful performance of the high loading tests

for each factor. This factor is defined as Body Projection - Agility

Emphasized. Some fluctuation from analysis to analysis is to be

noted for this factor. However, the changes do not have the drastic

effect noted for previous factors. The factor is thus judged to

be quite stable.

FACTOR VIII

No. VariableFB8F

PP8F

FB1OF

PP13F

3 Twist & Touch .63 .45 .64 .602L1. Two-ft. Cross Balance

Eyes Open .72 .61 .78 .7826 Two-ft. Cross Balance

Eyes Closed .60 .52 .52 .286 Soccer Dribble .10 .L1.2 .22 .13

25 1-ft. Lengthwise BalanceEyes Closed .26 ,32 .21 .18

30 Ping -gong B.T. Practice 4 .37 .0131 Ping-pong B.T. Practice 5 .37 .3032 Ping-pong B.T. Practice 6 -.16 .27

Variables loading high for this factor and exhibiting robustness

across solutions involve tasks requiring balance. This is true both

for visual and non-visual cues. Again as with previous factors

flexibility appears as a limiting factor to the performance of tasks

loading high on this factor. The justificntions given previous Rr.

valid here also, thus, they will not be repeated. The observations

noted previously concerning number of factors influencing the logica]

soundness of the factor structure may also be seen with the present

factor. The contribution of this factor to the performance of the

Ping-pong Ball Toss task changes from a contributing factor to a

limiting factor. This of course is not logical and thus, is

grounds for rejecting the 13 factor solution as unreliable. It is

interesting to note, however, that the top loading items remain

robust even for this factor solution. Therefore, this factor is

defined as Balance - Visual Perception Emphasized.

FACTOR IX

No. VariableFB1OF

PP13F

6 Soccer Dribble (.74 -.7823 1-ft. Lengthwise Balance

Eyes Open .70 -.2011 Vertical Jump -.38 .4722 Kinesthetic Sense -.26 .33

This factor has items loading high which include projecting the

body with coordinative movement recuired by the legs. The fact that

the vertical jump test loads high for this factor suggest that the

coordinative movement is more easily controlled when great strength

and/or speed of movement is present. The factor is thus defined

Pody Projection - Lower 'Extremities Emphasized.

FACTOR X

No. VariableFB1OF

PP13F

5 Cable jump -.85 -:8913 'Hand Grip .40 .3526 Two-ft. Cross Balance

Eyes Closed .37 .2229 Ping -pony; B.T. Practice 3 -.4430 Ping - -?gong B.T. Practice 4 -.31

This factor has one item with a high factor loading with the remaining

items exhibiting; low loadings. Only two additional items show

londins over .30 for the Fli-back Paddle Ball Toss analysis. Two

of the latter are practice sessions for the novel skill. This factor

FuePea- to be a pure factor with its task specific to the Cable

Jump skill. Th) Cable Jump test has been described previously by

Fleishman as a Gross Body Coordination Factor. We see no reason to

chance the definition here. However, in view of the pure loading

for tbis factor we are sdding the restriction "task specific" to

its definition. The definition then becomes "Gross Body Coordination

Task Specific". It is interesting to note that coordination as a

motor ability trait generally renuires a clear understanding of the

task to be performed and is usually highly specific. Thus, the

addendum to Fleishman's definition is well founded.

FACTOR XI

No. Variable Loading_._

21 Block Transfer -.8118 Two-foot Tapping .617 Bar Snap -.32

17 Plate Tapping .31

FACTOR XII

No. Variablc LoadinF;

26 2-ft. Cross PalanceEyes Closed .68

32 Ping-pong Practice 6 -.5825 1-ft. Lengthwise Balance

Eyes Closed .327 Bar Snap -.31

FACTOR XIII

No.

23 1-ft. Lengthwise BalanceEyes Open .86

7 Bar Snap .30

Factor XI appears to be a factor involving speed of movement extremities

emphasized but not total body p:oojection. Since speed of movement. is

generally considered highly specific it is logical that this factor

would appear separate of the previous speed of movement factor isolated.

The factor does, however, have upper and lower extremity tasks loading

high. This suggest that. the two extremities are.not independent with

regard to speed of movement as concept not generally supported by the

professional literature. There is, however, no universal agreement

concerning this relationship. The factor appears to be robust and

thus is defined as Speed of Movement Extremities Emphasized. Factor XII

has high loadings associated with balance items with no visual cues.

It is interesting to note that a late practice session for the

F;n.g-pong Yiall Toss skill has a moderate loading for this factor.

Tills suggest. that during latter stages of practice of a novel skill

visual cues become less important as a contributing factor to the

)cfrormancie of the task and non-visual cues become more important,

.V0( example, kinesthetic nerception.

Factor XIII has only one item loading high namely a static

balance task permitting vision. This same test appear previously

on a number of factors. This suggests that balance as a factor is

multidimensional or factorially complex. This factor appears to be

only a manifestation of this multidimensionality. It is thus defined

as Static Balance.

Factor Structure of Learning Sequences

Fli-back Paddle Ball. Observing Figure 1, it may be noted that

the factor identified as Eve-hand Coordination Test Specific accounts

for 90 to 98 percent of the amount of variation in the practice scores

for the ten practice sessions. The remaining factors extracted and

shown to be robust, account for no more than eight percent for any one

practice session. Thus, one's motor ability characteristics provide

little information relative to likely success on this novel skill.

Since the interrelationships among the ten practice sessions

are extremely high beginning with the first sessions it may be concluded

that raliable performance scores can be obtained based on one's initial

efforts on this test.

The eight factors account for greater than 90 percent of the

common factor variance. Thus, no additional factors could be added

to the factor solution with the hopes of isolating basic motor and/or

cognitive factors which would permit one's ultimate performance level

to be predicted.

Ping -gong Ball Toss. Factors contributing to the performance of

the Ping-pong ball toss task are graphically displayed in Figure 2.

The factorial structure for this task is to be distinguished from that

of the Fli-back paddle ball task. Unlike the latter, this factor does

not exhibit a factor unique to its performance until late in the

practice session. This means that one's initial performance on the

Ping-pong ball toss task is related to his previous experiences with

motor tasks but as the practice schedule continues, previous experiences

become less important with specific practice becoming the dominant

factor contributing to performance. These results also suggest that

performance based on early practice sessions are not reliable due to

the factorially complex nature of the novel skill. We have observed

this to be true for some sport skill tasks but surprisingly not true

for others. As a result a number of measurement and evaluation texts

discussing sports skill tests point out that specific tests are useful

(i.e. reliable) for assessing performance of beginners while others

are useful only for assessing more advanced performances. The level

of difficulty for the battery items could not explain this phenomenon

and thus were forced to turn to other factors as a possible

explanation. It would appear that this study has provided at least

one solution to the problem. From Figure 1 and 2 we note that

reliability of task performance is associated with high contribution

from the specific task and low contribution from factors isolated

in the study. This demonstrates that low complexity of the factorial

structure for the novel skill in question is a necessary condition

for high reliability of the novel skill. It does not, however,

demonstrate that both a necessary and sufficient condition for high

reliability has been established since only an association has been

demonstrated. In addition, rigorous reliability date were not

assessed for the skill tests studied. Final analysis of the question

of reliability and specific validity await both additional exploratory

work and highly controlled experimental studies. It is interesting

to note, however, that the present study lays the groundwork for these

needed studies. Tremendous savings in data collection has been

achieved since the present study has made it possible a great deal

of data reduction to be achieved in future studies. That is, since

specific factors and their association with the learning curves for

the novel skills have been isolated, the number of variables needed

to further study these associations has been reduced from 36 to

only eight.

Figure 2, depicting the factor structure for the Ping-pong ball

toss task, provides a means of analyzing the factor patterns in

relation to practice. The results indicate clearly that considerable

changes occurred in the factor structure of the Ping-pong ball toss

task as practice continued. These changes appear to follow a fairly

definite trend. The task's factor structure is more complex initially

(showed higher loadings on more factors) than for latter stages of

practice. For example, following practice schedule 8 the contribution

of the eight isolated factors completely collapses. In addition, from

practice schedule 6 on, the contribution of the factor defined as

specific to-the task increases sharply.

The somewhat lower communality (h2) for practice stage 1

relative to those of the remaining stages (with the exception of

stage 6) suggest the presence of more unexplained vaxiance for the

task initially than during the latter stages. This would suggest

additional factors associated with the task may be operative. Since

the gross motor domain is reasonably represented in the study, the

additional factors, if present, must come from fine motor skills

and/or non-motor factors. The results do permit us to conclude that

certain "motor" factors become less and less important as contributors

to individual differences in performance. At the same time, practice

on the task itself becomes the major contributor.

From a practical point of view this latter conclusion is important

if it can be generalized. The results suggest that college students

possessing low motor ability characteristics are not restricted, at

least from the motor sense, from acquiring specific sports skills.

The results do suggest that individuals of this type may experience

difficulty early in the learning process. Thus, identifying these

individuals early a course is most important to permit the instructor

the opportunity to guard against the "failure syndrome" so often seen

in the first few stages of'practice.

There was also a shift in the nature of the factors contributing

variance at early and later stages of practice. Figure 2 provides

the following view of the Ping -gong ball toss learning curve:

(1) Individual differences in performance for the first

stage of practice is insignificantly related to the task

itself. In G Aition, six of the remaining seven factors

also contribute little to explaining individual differences.

Flexibility as a limiting factor to task performance was

the only factor contributing explained variance to the task

performance scores. The remaining was identified as variance

(i.e. unreliability) or the fact that additional factors

not included in the study are operative. It would appear

that flexibility limitations operate to inhibit coordinated

control of muscles of the elbow, forearm and hand in

performing the ball toss task. We may speculate that

the inhibition operates in the following manner. Since

flexibility and strength are related, lack of flexibility

produces lower levels of strength available to the

performer. Consequently, greater numbers of motor units

are necessary to perform the task. Since the task is

a novel one, and therefore unlearned, difficulty in

controlling this larger number of motor units is encountered.

As the task is practiced control of the motor units is

transferred from the motor area of the cerebral cortex to

the pre-motor area. When this occurs the entire movement

is initiated as a single pattern and individual control

of specific motor units is no longer necessary. Apparently

the transformation takes place prior to practice stage

three since contribution of factor four in explaining

individual differences collapses at that time while

contribution of the factor associated with the task itself

increases sharply. Simultaneously, factor six -- Extend

Flexibility appears as a contributing factor explaining

individual differences in performance. This would

suggest that establishing the skill of ball tossing at

this point is related to how well the performers can

mentally establish the nature of the task thereby grasping

a feeling for what is involved and also transferring

flexibility from a limiting factor to a contributing

factor. This latter concept apparently implies that the

individual must establish the flexibility ne'ded to reduce

the number of motor nits required down to a minimum before

high levels of performance can be achieved. Thus, at this

stage of practice those individuals achieving this mental

picture and the necessary reduction in motor units required,

perform the task well, while those who do not, exhibit

minimal performances.

For practice stage four, the factorial structure becomes

maximally complex. It is at this stage that the largest number of

factors exhibit significant loadings. Flexibility as a contributing

factor continues to explain individual differences in performances

while Balance - Visual Perception Emphasized, General Strength

with Explosive Components Emphasized, Body Projection with Power,

and to a lesser extent Body - Agility Emphasized

emerge as contributing factors. It would appear that this stage is

characterized as a point where one's experience and success with

previous motor task become important. Many individuals during

practice stage three scored high performances. How well they

continue to progress thus depends upon their ability to live with

success. Clearly those who have realized previous success and/or

possessed high motor ability continued to progress with the ball

tossing task. Those without, either remained at the same plateau

or declined. This is further seen from the fact that the contribution

of the task itself decreased in its ability to explain individual

differences in performance. Its contribution increases sharply

during the next practice session pointing out that great variability

in performance exists. This resulted from further increases in top

performances while medium'and low performers either remained at the

same level or reduced in performance.

From a practical point of view it would appear that increasing

confidence within each performer is most important at this stage

in insuring continued advances in performance levels. Secondarily,

the factorial results do suggest that increasing one's motor ability

level at this stage would also enhance performance. It is doubtful

that this could be achieved except in the very low coordinated

individuals since one's basic motor pattern is generally established

prior to entering college. However, for these low coordinated

individuals, the results do suggest that some remedial work would

be beneficial in improving sports skill performance.

During practice stage six the percent contribution of all the

factors decreases including the one specific to the task itself.

No logical reasons could be found to explain the reductions. It is

well documented that learning curves occasionally produce fluctuations

which are unexplained.

Following practice stage six the consistent pattern for the

learning curve continues the trend established previously. During

practice stages seven and eight, three factors among the motor domain

contribute to explain individual differences among performances.

Apparently these factors continue to represent traits needed to

achieve high levels of performance.

It would appear that these three factors (General Strength,

Flexibility and Body Projection with Power) represent the pathways

through which the great reduction in the number of motor units, and

therefore, control, is achieved to realize high levels of performance.

This hypothesis can be tested for validity using electromyographic

recordings of the muscles involved in performing the ball toss.

The present study permits us to isolate the specific and pertinent

measures to include in this proposed experimental study. Thus, a

Master Thesis could be conducted to test this hypothesis. Without

this present study it would not be possible.

Bibliography

le Aliport, Gordon W.: Studies in Ex Movemtat.New York, The Macmillan Co., 19330

22. Barrow, H.M. and McGee, R.: A PxcILRrpach toMeasurementPhiladelphia, 1963,

3. Brace, Debi& It,: lisalujAbi.....e2S.MotorA1.3., New York, As S. Barnes Co., 19260

40 Buxton, E.E. and Humphries, L.G.: The effect of practice uponinterecirrelations of motor skills. Science, 812 441-442. 1935.

5. Crotty, B.J.: Movement Behavior aad Motor warning. Lea andFebiger, Philadelphia, 3671 19670

6. Cumbee, Frances:

E21222..E.9.4...RatE12E1I

A factorial analysis, 25, 412.420, 1954,

The Will-Tem eramentNew York, World Book

79 Downey, June E.:Yonkerson-Hudson,

of motor coordination.

and Its Testiaa,

Co., 3390 1923.

80 Fleishman, Edwin A.: The dimensions of physical fitness -- thenationwide normative and developmental study of basic tests,Technical Report No, 4, The Office of Naval Research, Departmentof Industrial Administration and, Department of Psychology,Yale University, New Haven, Conn., August 1962,

9, Fleishman, Edwin A. and Hempel, Walter E., jr.: Changes infactor structure of a complex psychomotor test as a functionof practice. Eus11201/1.,1 19, 239252, 19540

10,, Fleishman, Edwin A. and Hempel, Walter E., Jr.: The relationbetween abilities and improvement with practice in a visualdiscrimination reaction task. st....w4...pgist. , 490 301.3120 1955,

lle Garfielp Evelyn: The measurement of motor ability. Atell_Laya.09, 1-47, 1923,

12, Giro, Eugenia and Espensehade, Anna: Relation between measuresof motor educability and learning of specific motor skills.Research Quart, 13, 41-56, 19420

13. Henry, Franklin: Interdependence of reaction and movement timesand equivalence of sensory motivators of fast response,EspearituatElemly, 31, 40.457, 1960,

14. Henry, Franklin and Whitley, J.D.: Relationships betweenindividual differences in strength, speeds and mass in anarm movement. ft...aseall, 31, 24-33, 1960.

150 Hollingworth, H.L.:j Correlation of abilities as affected bypractice. J. Ed. Psych., 4. 405-413, 1913.

160 Hotelling, H.: "Analysis of a Complex of Statistical Variablesinto Principal Components°. Journal of Educational24: 4/7-441, 498-5200 1933.

17. Ismail, A.R. and Cowell, C.C.: "Factpr Analysis of MotorAptitude of Pre-Adolescent Boys". Relearch Quart,32: 507-513, 1961.

18. Johnson, B. and Nelson, cr.: Practical Measurements forEvaluation in Ph steal Education. Minneapolis, Burgess

19. Kaiser, H.F. and Caffrey, I.:. "Alpha Factor Analysis".Psychometrika, 30: 1-]1., 1965,

20. Kaiser, R.F.: "The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation inFactor Analysis". Zuchometrika, 23: 187-200, 1958.

21. Mathews, D.K.: 12altuLtueihsical Education. Philadelphia:W. B. Saunders Company, 3rd. ed. 19787

22. MoCloy, C.H.: An analytical study of the stunt type test as ameasure of motor educability. Res. Quart., 8, 46-55, 1937.

230 Oxendine, J.B. "Generality and Specificity in the Learning of Pintand Gross Motor Skills". Research Quarterly, 38: 86.94., 1967o

2i. Perrin, F.A.C.: An experimental study of motor ability.4, 25-27, 1921.

25* Rao, C.R; "Estimation and Tests of Significance in FactorAnalysis," Psychometrika, 30: 1-14, 1965,

26, Reynolds, B. and Bilodeau, I. MoD.: Aoquistion and retentionof three psychomotor tests as a function of distribution ofpractice during acquisition. 74.....ayslty L4, 19-260 1952,

27. Seashore, R.G.: Individual differences in motor skills.J. Gen, Pam., 3, 38-66, 19300

28. Singer, R.N': Motor Learnin and Human Performance.New York: The ac an ompany.

29. Woodrow, H.: "Factors in Improvement with Practice".Journal of Peznolosz, 7, 55-70, 19390

TABLE 1.

Intercorrelation Matrix for Reference Variables

12

34

56

78

910

11

1.

Dod;ze Run

1.00

.59

-.25

.05

.04

.12

-.26

.08

.07

-.24

-.10

2.

Figure-8 Duck

1.00

-.28

.30

-.02

.11

-.00

.12

.08

-.12

.06

3.

Twist e: Touch

1.00

.04

.01

-.04

.03

-.24

-.26

-.09

-.n3

L.

Toe Touching

1.00

.24

.01

-.03

-.05

-.01

.02

.10

5.

Cable Jump

1.00

-.03

-.03

.09

.13

.22

.00

6.

Soccer Dribble

1.00

.03

-.05

.06

-.12

-.29

7.

Bar Snap

1.00

.08

.01

.4/1

.23

8.

Pull-ups Limit

1.00

.93

.411.

9.

Pull-ups Timed

1.00

.38

.32

10.

Standing Broad Jump

1.00

.56

11.

Vertical Jump

1.00

12.

Arm Pull

13.

Hand Grip

1E.

Ball Balance

15.

Visual Reaction Time

16.

Movement Time

17.

Plate Tapping

18.

Two-foot Tapping

19.

Lateral Bend

20.

One-foot Tapping

21.

Block Transfer

22.

Kinesthetic Sense

23..

One-foot Lengthwise Balance Eyes Open

2h.

Two-foot Cross Balance Eyes Open

25.

One-foot Lengthwise Balance Eyes Closed

26.

Two-foot Cross Balance Eyes Closed

Mean

143.

173.

16.

S.D.

19.

30.

7.

48.

4.

364.

52.

25.

2.

74.

12.

11.

9.

86.

20.

4.

3.

7.

3.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

.04

-.11

-.19

.09

.08

-.04

-.06

-.20

.01

.10

.18

.11

.05

-.01

-.01

-.00

.02

-.37

.04

-.04

-.19

-.15

-.09

-.13

.34

.09

.09

.09

-.20

-.07

-.c)6

-.13

.04

-.04

-.06

-.04

-.06

.04

-.10

-.30

.05

-.12

.23

.05

.19

-.10

-.20

-.11

.11

.12

.06

.31

.16

.11

-.08

.25

-.13

-.15

-.27

.03

-.03

-.26

.15

.03

.C9

-.06

.23

.09

.12'

.00

.12'-.05

.05

.12

-.18

-.01

-.00

-.12

-.12

-.09

-.20

-.13

-.16

-.22

.15

-.06

.24

.12

-.08

.114.

.13

.22

-.03

-.04

-.14

-.01

-.10

.14

-.13

.14

-.20

.08

.04

-.10

-.06

.43

.21

-.13

-.05-.15

-.05

.02

-.05

--.06

.14

-.12

-.06

.18

.27

.09

.46

.18

-.11

-.09

-.14

-.05

.02

-.08

-.03

.12

-.11

-.04

.13

.26

.08

.20

.21

-.01

-.04

.01

.09

.01

-.04

.07

-.06

-.16

-.14

6.04

.04

-.13

.09

.07

.17

.22

.19

.30

.13

.03

.28

-.15

.19

-.12

'.08

.06

-.05

1.00

.35

.02-.09

-.25

.15

-.01

.24

-.03

.20

-.06

.06

.14

.42

.02

1.00

-.34

-.60

-.68

-.37

-.25

.03

-.54

.23

-.33

.03

.09

.24

.25

1.00

.50

.49

.60

.37

.9

.59

-.15

.12

-.10

-.04

.16

-.02

1.00

.85

.69

.35

.05

.82

-.21

.34

-.01

-.05

-.23

-.20

1.00

.68

.37

.02

.86

-.33

.32

-.04

-.14

-.37

-.33

1.00

.53

.28

.81

-.49

.23

-.02

-.10

-.05

-.13

1.00

.26

.55

-.h4

.16

.02

-.20

.09

-.11

1.00

.08

-.02

.04

.00

-.02

.10

-.11

1.00

-.46

.33

-.12

-.09

-.16

-.25

1.00

-.18

.04

.03

.13

-.07

1.00

-.05

-.11

-.13

1.00

-.09

-.06

-.00

1.00

.15

.22

1.00

.31

1.00

75.

93.

91.

196.

81.

46.

13.

34.

28.

90.

138.

235.

422.

373.

23.

22.

18.

76.

53.

76.

9.

2.

10.

8.

56.

70.

323.

240.

182.

11.

TABLE 2.

Intercorrelation Matrix of Practice

Stages for Positive

Learning Curve Skills and Reference Variables

12

3.

45

67

89

10

11

12

1

27.

Practice 1

.19

.07

-.20

.03

.11

-409

-.12

.18

.05

-.01

.05

-.11

-.06

28.

Practice 2

.20

.10

-.15

.07

.14

-.09

-.22

.15

.05

-.05

.0h

-.08

-.08

29.

Practice 3

.24

.08

-.11

.09

.10

-.12

-.2t

.21

.20

-.08

.05

-.11

-.10

30.

Practice 4

.23

.09

-.12

.07

.10

-.15

-.23

.20

.08

-.08

.011-.09

-.10

31.

Practice 5

.22

,11

-.14

.07

.09

-.12

-.12

.16

.02

-.05

.02

-.12

-.70

32.

Practice 6

.20

.11

-.17

.0)±

.11

-.15

-.09

.13

-.01

-.04

.02

-.11

-.08

33.

Practice 7

.19

.10

-.18

.03

.11

-.12

-.04

.10

-.03

-.03

.02

-.11

-.06

34.

Practice 8

.16

.08

-.16

.02

.15

-.12

-.15

.09

-.02-.04

.04

-.0)1

35

Practice 9

.20

.08

-.18

.03

.13

-.10

-.16

.15

.03

-.03

.011_

-.01!

-.eh

36.

Practice 10

.16

.05

-.13

.00

.14

-.14

-.18

.10

-.01

-.05

.0h -.02

-.05

So'

2.2°

III°

1V- 90°- 20°-

9-E°

a)°- Tr-

Lo'

Lo'

11°

or- 90°- 00°- 10°- Ll*

ea°

Lo°

TO`

(:1°

L2'

a°

11°- Lo'- oo°

ooe- LT'

ea*

TT°

-40*- 21°-

i0'

TO'

LI'

go°

aT°- 6o°- Co'

Z.o'- 2T°

1T°

La°

TO"- Or- O °-

20°

61°

90'

L0°- ao°

Coe- .eI'

5-E°

£o°

91°

90'

90°- TO°

0°- 60'

51"

60'_

a'

6o°

CI'- go°- 20°- `CO'- OT°

02'

5T°

9e°

90°

60°- 50°-

20°- LO°

go°

T2'

go°- 6o°- 20°- 10°- li°

22'

90°

10*-

60'- 90 °-

90°

10°-

TT'- 80 °-

Lo°

20°-

2IG- 20°-

90'

110*-

11°- ao°-

Lo°

Co°- 51°- eo°

110°

£T.

TO°- II' 00°- ao°- 91'

61'

10°

0°- 1T°- 00'

92

52

t2

az.2

T2

oa

61

91

LT

91

51

1T

TABLE 3.

Intercorrelation Matrix of Practice Stages for Negative

Learning Curve Skills and Reference Variables

12

3.

45

67

89

10

11

12

13

37.

Practice 1

-.03

.07

-.02

-.03

.01

-.03

.35

.17

.13

.24

.25

-.12

.06

38.

Practice 2

-.18

-.19

.14

-.02

-.07

-.01

.27

-.10

-.01

.20

.24

-.06

-.07

39.

Practice 3

-.05

-.10

.02

.01

.17

-.10

.00

.11

.07

.09

.03

.03

--.03

h0.

Practice 4

-.05

-.25

.09

-.27

.19

-.00

.01

.2i

.21

.16

=.11

.27

.17

41.

Practice 5

-.09

-.11

.08

-.15

-.06

.09

.24

.32

.23

.23

-.00

.35

.07

h2.

Practice 6

-.13

.05

-.02

-.10

-.05

-.20

.20

.09

-.02

.09

.01

.17

.02

Practice 7

-.09

-.12

.02

-.09

-.02

-.23

.27

.05

-.07

.07

-.01

.21

-.03

hh.

Practice 8

-.12

-.18

.12

-.17

-.17

-.06

.09

.33

.25

.31

.09

.07

-.01

45.

Practice 9

-.06

-.04

-.06

-.05

-..31

-.02

.15

.0

.10

.19

.09

.23

.0)2.

46.

Practice 10

-.08

-.08

-.15

-.16

-.11

.01

.07

.36

.23

.211

.07

.08

.03

11,

T2°

£1°

£1°- 12*- TO'

£1°

LO'

22°

529

OT°

22'

CO' 02

LT*- LO'

5T°

£0'

II'

L2

90'

60'

10°

lz°- 92-- 91°- 60°

90°- 5T*

2Te

1T'

£2°

ET°

£0°

Cr- LT°

10'

1C°

10". OE'

Lo°- LT'

Er

L0°- 50°- 50°- ecr- 91'

62°

V('

LT'

Lo°- 60°- 90'

90°- er

1T°

T1*

11'

LO'

62'- 50'

£0'

£T'

90'

60°

10°- 02°- 50'- Lo'- 20°- 20'

T0°

90'- 10°- eoi- 1T°-

ET'- 90'- TT'

Ta°- 61°-

92

52

ee

22

£1°-

6T°

20°-

10'

-2

02

20°

91'

50"

22'

90*-

50'

90'

£0'

51'

L0°-

90'

22'

LO'

60'

LO'

90'

61'

e'

9T'

5o*

eT*

01'

£0'

10°-£1

oe'

20'-

90'

01'-

91°-

20'

20'

60*-

10°-

2£'

60°-

60'-

S0'-

60°

9T'

61'

20'-

60'

90'

61

91

LI

91

ST

ITT

TABLE 4.

Intercorrelation Matrix

Positive Learning

of Practice Stages for

Curve Skills

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

27

27.

Practice 1

1.00

.96

.92

.92

.93

.90

.91

.87

.94

.89

28.

Practice 2

1.00

.96

.97

.95

.93

.93

.94

.98

.95

291

Practice 3

1.00

.99

.96

.93

.92

.91

.95

.92

30.

Practice 4

1.00

.98

.96

.95

.93

.96

.94

31.

Practice 5

1.00

.99

.98

.93

.95

.93

32.

Practice 6

1.00

.99

.95

.95

.94

33.

Practice 7.

1.00

.96

.96

.95

34.

Practice 8

1.00

.97

.99

35.

Practice 9

1.00

.98

36.

Practice 10'

1.00

Mean

10.4

12.0

14.8

19.8

21.9

24.2

32.7

35.6

33.5

40.2

S.D.

9.0

12.2

17.6

27.1

37.9

47.3

81.1

76.7

55.5

72.9

TABLE 5.' Intercorrelation Matrix of Practice Stages for

Negative Learning Curve Skills

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

37.

Practice 1

1.00

.52

.11

.09

.18

.15

.15

.19

.11

.12

38.

Practice 2

1.00

.33

.17

.28

.09

.30

.19

.18

.11

39.

Practice 3

1.00

.23

.30

.15

.39

.30

.29

.30

110.

Practice 4

1.00

.43

.07

.32

33

.35

.51

41.

Practice 5

1.00

.39

.50

.37

.57

.51

42.

Practice 6

1.00

.35

.18

.36

.36

113.

Practice 7.

1.00

.30

.56

.14

44.

Practice 8

1.00

.58

.50

45.

Practice 9

1.00

.78

46.

Practice 10

1.00

Mean

26.1

30.8

34.8

38.3

/10.9

39.541.3

45.4

45.2

48.0

S.D.

8.9

9.0

9.4

8.6

10.3

9.2

9.3

9.6

9.7

8.9

TABLE 6.

Rotated Factor Loadings for

Curve Skills and Reference

I

positive

Learning

IV

VVI

VII

VIII

IX

X

Variables1,2

II

III

1.

Dodge Run

.19

.10

.13

.13

.35

.01

.68

-.01

.14

.06

2.

Figure-8 Duck

.07

-.09

.05

.05

-.05

.19

.87

-.03

.09

.04

3.

Twist & Touch

-.15

-.05

-.29

.00

.02

.18

- .33

.64

-.16

-.0L

4.

Toe Touching

.04

.04.,-.07

-.05

-.07

.84

.23

-.02

-.04

-.21

5.

Cable Jump

.12

.00:-.14

-.07

-.00

.19

- .07

.01

-.01

-.55

6.

Soccer Dribble

-.11

.00

.13

.04

-.03

.11

.22'

.74

-.15

7.

Bar Snap

-.14

-.12

-.03

-.18

-.81

-.05

- .03

.04

.1h

.03

8.

Pull-ups Limit

.13

-.06

.90

.05

-.14

-.03

.08

.00

-.02

-.05

9.

Pull-ups Timed

.00

.93

.05

-.05

.00

.05

-.02

.03

-.10

10.

Standing Broad

Jump

-.04

.01.:

.47

.11

-.69

.0)1

- .20

-.06

-.18

11.

Vertical Jump

.03

.28

.40

.01

-.50

.17

.03

.03

-.38

.13

12.

Arm Pull

-.12

-.09

.55

-.59

-.00

-.13

.09

.05

.01

.11

13.

Hand Grip

-.07

-.66

.26

-.27

-.17

-.06

- 005

-.04

-004

.40

14.

Ball Balance

-.00

.63

-.05

-.43

.04

-.19

- .32

.07

-.04

-.12

15.


-.13

.90

-.05

-.00

-.04

-.02

.15

-.00

-.02

,00

16.

Movement Time

-.02;

.91

-.13

.16

-.04

.01

.05

-.12

-.02

-.09

17.

Plate Tapping

.08

.84

.05

-.25

-.07

.09

- .17

-.06

-.02

.25

18.

Two-foot Tapping

.21

.48

.12

-.24

.11

.48

- .31

-.22

.10

-.06

19.

Lateral Bend

.13

.09

-.15

-.81

-.15

.15

- .08

-.03

-.03

-.05

20.

One-foot Tapping

-.01

.93

.05

-.02

.01

.07

- .09

-.11-.11

.00

21.

Block Transfer

-.02

-.112

.05

-.22

-.07

-.43

.11_8-.13

.05

-.26

22.

KinesGhetic Sense

-.11

.38

-.08

-.05

.23

.32

.30

.13

-.26

-.09

23.


-.09

-.01

-.02

-.08

-.01

-.00

.06

-.17

.70

.15

2L.


.11

-.02

.15

-.01

-.13

-.21

.16

.78

.03

-.06

25.


.20

-.20

.I3 -.41

.32

-.22

- .26.

.21

-.11

-.02

26.


.07

-.24

.17

.03

.24

.16

- .18

.52

.17

-.37

27.

Practice 1

.95

-.00

.03

.01

-.04

-.00

.02

-.03

.06

-.00

28.

Practice 2

.98

-.00

.05

-.02

.06

.011

.01

.01

.01

-.02

29.

Practice 3

.96

-.01

.10

.04

.12

.08

.00

.01

-.02

.01

30.

Practice It

.98

.01

.07

.03

.09

.03

.03

.00

-.06

.00

31.

Practice 5

.98

-.01

_.00

.05

-.00

.01

.07

-.02

-.04

-.01

32.

Practice 6

.98

-.01

-.02

.01

-.03

-.03

.07

-.03

-.06

-.01

"2Practice 7

.98

--.01

-.05

-.01

-.07

-.0k

.06

-.03

-.03

-.01

31_1.

Practice 8

.97

.00

.00

-.10

.02

-.02

.01

.01

-,05

-.01

35.

Practice 9

.99

-.01

.04

-.06

.02

.00

.03

.01

-.01

-.00

36.

Practice 10

.97

.02

.01

-.10

.05

-.03

- .02

.03

-.06

-001

Percent Contribution

27.2

13.5

8.0

4.8

5.2

4.4

6.0

L.3

4.0

3.8

'Number of factors determinedby Eigen Criterion.

2Unrotated factor loadings available upon request.

t-;

I-11-1Fl

.0 a) 0'3 .r. 0,j C 0-1r, (--1.1A0.11A__-1 0 c.r.; om.in r--1 (`,1 ,HIC (\ j 1.('Cf: CI: 0,1; (L;CCOr-1U)OHOHOr-10(nHOONH000HC;Cf-1NC°_:;Cfl(2C.C,00jO00900 000000 0 0 0 0 90e eItili 1 I

(-Ni 0 crua..) Mr--( r 11,,N C\I C r-I C\I c\I a.: CD (ID (7. 04 r-t 0 (,-\ j wr\0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 C, H C 0 0 0 0 Cu 0 0-i (NI H ,- C\.1 C.; O H O r()N C G 0 0000 005000 0 0 e 09000008

I I

N.0 r - Na) cv(-\J a.. )N 0-1 0 N H \1 r'') 0 0 EV 0 -1-r\ H 0.) H 11),) rI00000C--000H-J1-10000H00HH(nNHN0OHNHONNI-ieires0909000.2.111111 1 I 1 1 1 11

HOOHHHHOOHOH.-:..±o1 I I 1 1111

H O ce-00 H (\ r-1 N-.0r> CON riC'0C'\Hc -i HOONtO I 3 I I i -I i

CV1-4 H C\J CZ) CV H 0 NO in CN..:.,-1 C\.! cr\ i:)

I-I ',---,. 0 (k.i 1---1 t--1 0 1---t MO 0 0 0 r-I 0 0S.. C) I-I 0CI 0 I 1 I I 11111W H14,0 FA .....71-0NONO<IH....taid-001-r\

0:1 H EDONEDHCHCOCn% .0 1.Als\ MOco,' F-4 ooe,99HH 000 r---c0 c0 H 0 c0 r-I C--000HHOONH..0-.0

0I I I

NaDOCr) H Mal ON CV a, 0 0.]F1 H 0000H0r-INOH00.100O N .2* e

O

S-I

0

C H c\I cf,CC) 0 H 0 0 0 cc\9I I I I

Cr'Or---NHMNIA0(n00000H0NHHH0!till000HHEnNHNI-ONcrNDONC00000

0 0

1 1 1

0-1,00 .1) CO N. N. V\ N000000000HCVo o

1 I I I

HMCOONQOHEDEVO-WOEYO`NinOCT'M-d-CON

o a111111 1-

NNIP;NIflaINOMVNNHOHHOOONHON0 a 0I I I

1-111\ Cl

I I

O lc\ H O ON 0, H r-`1.-r\ Cl;CHHNHHOjNO0 004100040,060I

HNISEnN.ON...74,-0NHO CC;OHHCH000H10I I 1111

O'llACIIN001r\O,HUCHOHHNNED000 U'.

H(nONNOMHCelOHOOHHOHNHN0t I t t

NOM.OMCED.JDNOMMNOHHOCOCOHHe v 0

I 1 1 I 1

M M.0 Map 0 NCO ON

r.)

C) Er3

P, 0O HU rd

CI) C)

0-)0.)(1)0

r1-1 P. I>31-1o WC)O ria O (t)IV, 0 U a)

1>zH cdfx1

HM0a100M0o 0 Z 0

P-, 5 (I) cd 0 alE-I-,--1 1-4 H 01 4-10:3.-,--10,

W W til...CMtin4-3 ,r-41

C) -P 'Ii rd 0 !-A *1-4F.10,.dM-4-3MI'A ti) 40 P. P. 0 ci: Wo ta() rii

0.) -P F2, 1~ P.`0ry

P.4-4 c: 0 0O o.,--1..-iaWc000P4a)F..,

as Et p. E-1 !CV E+ 0,4 }-1r3)-10 H(NJ0 E-4,c-1:E;F-; SDI C5 (1) P. iti csi ,4-)c0 0 Pf--) a. ci) co tQ H H.,-; H 31) 4..) Li 4.) ..p c.4 ,0 4.) .P .p

pclia'J':-.11-D WP_P:0(.--4E6 ..,E-40H0E-1.0000 0 PI P :II .7-1 r-i 0 :II 0 VI 1I CO Oai0 -P000

0;..4.-PE-loorilifv-rifa4 Wilmc.-ir-lc.-INwc-Ic-iq-AY . ) J c o r-I 0 H H $7: -1-3 0 -Pi I 0 0.) 1 I Ird t:) r-1 a),0 0 g-, r-1 H czi S, r 9-1 w .t. cr. o -1-> a.) 0 0 p 0)(),--1:37.0cdoc::11-Pa.);-(oco.,-qpritrcor...;,-;.(is.13.5.1PrI4E4E-locifIlia,11,(.0,.'==';p1m;>,.-..:1).cli._10MMopo

H r: 0 al P.ootO V.E00 E-4 0

o\ _-__I- 111.0 N -CO HO W000000O (1)'100000O 0000000E WWGIWOJCJ3;44S4g4P4P4PIA111112

*********** 11 **** 400 OOOOOO 00Hn.irer-cooOHNOHN(n_z:111-v-Orqc\.0HHHHHHHriHHENIMENINNE\INNNNMr

HHrH

HHX

co (\Ica0 0 0

0' C--.00 H H

N 0 --t* 0 ("n r-1 N-CO c0 0 .0 H HH0(\Jel0000N0000H000 00I I I I I

O (3N H N (IN- H N ()NV\ (N.1 N0 0 H cr)0 0 (NJ 0 0 0 (Nj 0 H C 0

0..0 0 _rt0 0 .11\ 00 0 CN.100000.1 ,--100 NHOCDHHHOJHH00004I I I I I I I l I

HHOJOre)ONG0.0(--N cr-c0 liNc0 c*-10H 0 C-) H 0 0 Cf1.0 r-1 H r-{ H LC\ 0 0 0 0

I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I

1.1 IrN ri (--- c\I 0a) rf\(\, CO 0 .0 0 H N-a) 0-)N- c0 rR0 C3(\i 0 HI-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (NJ r,-)0,j OH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 (1.1 (.0 I-- NOOOHH 0 0*45I I I I I I III 1111 a 11111 I I

a) H H N C) C.) N -11.rls. cY)_:_-.11-,,co C4 ) CY) CD 11\ CY1

re)

M

Grf)0000HC\100HOJOHNO0CDNHOC)cnHr2Irroc-300-z-J000HO H4 0S1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 t 11 t 1 1 1 I 1

TABLE 8.

Ratated Factor Loadings for positive Learning

Curve Skills and Reference Variables1;2

1.2. 3.

5.6.

Dodge Run

Figure-6 Duck

Twist & Touch

Toe Touching

Cable Jump

Soccer Dribble

I

.20

.09

-.17

.03

.10

-014

II

.13

-.05

-.05

.07

.03

-.15

7.

Bar Snap

-.15

-.16

8.

Pull-ups Limit

.12

-.07

9.

Pull-ups Timed

-.00

-.06

10.

Standing Broad Jump

-.05

-.03

11.

Vertical Jump

.04

.29

12.

Arn Pull

-.12

-.o8

13.

Hand Grip

-.07

-.64

ILL.

Ball Balance

-.00

.61

15.


-.12

.90

16.

Movement Time

-.02

.91

17.

Plate Tapping

.08

.85

1,

Two-foot Tapping

.19

.L8

19.

Lateral Bend

.13

.09

20.

One-foot Tapping

-.01

.94

21.

Block Transfer

-.01

-.43

22,

Kinesthetic Sense

-.10

.42

23.


-.12

-.03

PLL.


.10

-.03

25.

One-foot Lengthwise Balance Eyes. Closed

.20

-.19

26.


.05

-.21

27.

Practice 1

.95

-.01

28.

Practice 2

.98

-.00

29,

Practice 3

.96

-.00

30.

Pr,2ctice 4

.98

.01

31,

Practice 5

.98

-.01

32.

Practice 6

.98

-.01

33.

Practice 7

.98

-002

34.

Practice 8

.97

-.00

35

Practice 9

.99

-.01

36.

Practice 10

.97

.02

Percent Contribution

27.2

13.5

-Only statistically significant factors rotated.

2Unrotated factor loadings available

upon zlec:uest.

III

.14

.04

-.12

.15

-.05

-.07

.88

.91

.43

.36

.60

.26

-001

-.05

-.14

.05

.11

-.11

.05

.10

-.07

-.05

.12

.4,7,

.13

.03

.05

.10

.08

.00

-.02

-.0)!

001

.05

.03

TV

.19

.12

V

.28

-.12

VI .06

.23

VII

.68

.63

-.01

.01

.17

-.35

-.01

-.10

.82

.15

-.10

.06

.61

-.11

-.01

.20

-.09

.38

-.27

-.74

-.12

.02

.09

-.19

.03

.07

.09

-.09

.07

.06

.09

-.70

.08

-.27

.09

-.62

.11

-.1?

-.53

-.04

-.10

.11

-.18

-.19

-.24

-.04

-.46

.07

-.10

-.31

-.01

-.08

..00

.12

.13

-.06

.04

.01

-.25

-.10

-.o8

-.17

-.25

.15

.36

-.29

-.60

-.12

.19

-.09

-.01

-.03

.06

-.14

-.20

-.06

-.13

.46

.04

.12

.12.1

.17

-.21

.1k

-.2h.

.31

-.03

-.16

-.10

.19

-.36

.3o -.11

-.2

.03

.23

-.10

-.08

-.01

-.03

-.01

.03

-.02

.06

.05

.01

.06

.11

.07

-.02

.05

.07

.05

-400

.05

-.01

.03

.03

.02

-.04

.01

.03

-.01

-.07

-.01

.01L

-.10

.01

.0?

-.02

-.06

.02

.02

.01

-.09

.04

.01

-.04

8.0

L.8

5.L

/10'8

6.3

.5"=

VII?

.01

-.02

.63

Z.

...01

-.14

.11

(;".:

-.03

.02

-.01

-.10

.1_!.

N.10

.06

.03

-.03

-.17

-.01

-.19

-.02

-.10

ra.

((-)

.72

.26

;z;

.6o

`.

-.02

.02

.0a

.03

-.01

ti

-.02

-.03

-Z

.02

.02

%

.04

itff

TABLE 9.

Rotated Factor Loadings for

Curve Skills and Reference

I

Negative

Learning

IV

VVI

VII

VITI

Variables1,2

II

III

1.

Dodq,e Run

.04

-.12

.05

.26

.69

-.12

.03

.16

2.

Firlure-8 Luck

-.05

.08

.03

-.05

.85

-.09

.13

-.06

3.

Twist & Touch

-.06

.05

-.30

-.11

-,44

-.03

.23

.45

L.

Toe Touching

-.15

-.10

-.07

-.05

.25

.02

.61_

-.15

5.

Cable Jump

-.25

-.11

.18

.01

.02

.29

.51

.19

6.

Soccer Dribble

-.10

.08

-.06

.02

.27

-.19

-.29

.42

7.

Bar Snap

.10

.17

.05

-.73

-.00

.20

-.16

-.10

8.

Pull-ups Limit

.22

.07

.88

-.02

.15

-.03

.06

.08

9.

Pull-ups Timed

.08

.05

.89

.00

.12

-.05

.0

.12

10.

Standing Broad Jump

.09

.03

.60

-.50

-.21

-.05

.08

-.15

11.

Vertical Jump

-.09

-.25

.50

-.46

-.09

-.02

.18

-.13

12.

Arm Pull

.17

.10

.51

.09

.07

.51

.16

.04

13.

11,.

Hand Grip

Ball Balance

.0i

.01

.67

-.65

.31

-.03

-.05

-.03

-.12

-.34

.13

.L2

-.23

-.13

-.11

.13

1.


.10

-.89

-.06

-.12

.15

-.03

-.03

-.03

16.

Movement Time

-.03

-.91

-.09

-.05

.03

-.16

.00

-.14

17.

Plate Tapping

.16

-.83

.05

-.08

-.16

.18

-.06

-.16

18.

Two-foot Tapping

.12

-,52

.10

.15

-.20

.17

.33

-.20

19.

Lateral Bend

.07

-.11

-.09

-.12'-.10

.73

.12

-.15

20.

One-foot Tapping'

.02

-.93

.07

-.03

-.10

-.01

.07

-.12

21.

Block Transfer

.05

.42

.05

-.04

.49

.24

-.25

-.02

22.

Kinesthetic sense

-.27

-.40

-.08

.15

.20

.08

.35

.02

23.


-.21

-.01

-.07

.05

.20

.20

-.47

.05

24.

Two-foc

Cross Balance Eyes Open

.03

.07

.12

-.16

.11

.04

.02

.61

25.


.26

.18

.34

.31

-.20

.44

-.00

.32

26.


.17

.23

.02

.19

-.14

-.06

-.00

.52

27.

Practice 1

.15

-.03

.08

-.70

.04

-.03

.09

.08

28.

Practice 2

.23

-.15

-.12

-.65

-.20

-.04

.02

.20

29.

Practice

.51

.10

-.03

-.05

-.10

-.02

.47

.08

30.

31.

32.

Practice 4

Practice 5

Practice 6

:la

-.03

.52

.03

-.06

.09

-.15

-.16

-.24

.00

.08

.28

.22

.24

-.18

-.02

.09

.37

.37

-.16

Practice 7

.66

-.06

-.15

-.21

.01

.45

-.01

.10

Practice 8

Practice 9

.65

.89

-.08

-.13

.24

.10

-.10

-.04

-.26

.03

-.33

-.03

-.00

-.09

.03

-.04

36.

Practice 10

.80

-.16

.23

.03

-.03

-.03

-.09

.05

1;rceri-e

0.00t-ributon

11.1

13.9

8.6

6.5

6.8'

5.7

5,,1

:2:inificant factors rotated.

v---c;MbIe

re ,,e-=t

anro+a6a

_-

'3

ifilm-1-77

110111111111111111111.1111111111111Mill

gR,

p.,11r.,,.7.1-00010111111111111111111111

" t<if

=IU

D--vvvirgn:1;.

tuii,A

MU

Millaninr11121111M

eghM

K=

tr. ,414.Tv D

7.'40%4 2011

AP

P;q1rV

il'4;

'Haiii714.

INN

UM

MIM

INM

IME

=111111111111111111111

1.74114111111111N

EI O

ME

N"

,,-71111111111111,

tgg-

"11111111111111

0.

IS

°v-g.....1:111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Pk I

_

vs:,41114;'i35,;),

AA

4

I,e

DIE

NE

S1111111111111111M

1,rk

.,7....11116111j11111111.111111110

-.4te."

Cr".

447-

"

,

;It,;I:r.'15,;,..1.

-

A?

141S's

1111111111111111111111111111O

ME

N

F'-

.12

P-3 re ?-6

.:

'-;)!.;.-

G1 G

55

75

35

30

5

/5

5

-1

ci r "rd ) 14-1:i: bu4-

...

iI

. 1

I

_ . .. _ _____ -

;-I

-.7-r---- 71- - -

I

. .

:7-7117.-

1 i

---

. : I-

I -i

.

!

-

i

.-

-. ---

.

-

-

..-- .., ..

.

L.

-t- -

- . - ...

I

:

_ !,

r:-_:.: [ -_

_ . .

_ ._ ..

7: :: I :

. ..::,-4- g

. F t - - tr

"i 6 '11 CI i Pl_a_Zi 1 ici_

i_

.

r

.

: r ........ _

_

,

,..-1...

.... .

of,...-.:2 1

_I

,..( ric.....

::_ .

_ _ .

.. _ ..

. -

-

.

-

--:

- - -

-. _

-.

- . - , -...-

- - - - - - -

-- .

-- -- - -.. . , - -. -

-

.

.

. .....

.i- -. .

.

_

I

... .

r

. .._.. - .

.. _..

- _--

.:7-11.:::::. -.

.

_.

i ---

.

-

..-

--- . -

..-:11::::- . -- ...

--. -- - -.Ti

1 , -- -

r:-'---

-t1 I 7 ". .

--1

. ..

. ...

.

.

. .

.

.

.. .

.

1

. .. .

...

- .

.

I

I

- -

1-19urt"_5

LL-d'l rs

7 Fr 9 /68 P.77 d al e -7

An1:11-,:,

document resume sp 006 840 dotson, charles 0. title novel … · 2014-01-02 · document resume ed...

Documents